Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Restless28, May 28, 2012.
Is the Abrams tanks still king of the hill in the modern tanks world, or has the world caught up?
General Dynamics is one hell of a company so I'm going to say yes.
They do keep updating the tanks. IIRC the armor was set up so new (designs) could be inserted as improvements.
I read up on it yrs ago. Lots of problems from start, changes made (some for questionable reasons)
IMO it still has some life left in it. It has ability to fire on go, at night, bad conditions, Thing is it was proven back when knights wore armor. Inventions will come along that can penetrate any armor light enough to (carry)
I would also assume that the training/skill of operator would still be important. I am not aware of any huge advancement in tank tech (not that I would be) It seems most countries are trying to take advantage of what the United states, its allies have done. I.E. catch up, work on quanity not quality.
$500,000 per tank.
Disagree. The platform must still be a good one as long as it gets updates. Gotta me much cheaper than a new platform.
Unit cost of an M1 Abrams is $6,210,000.00
$500,000 for an upgrade is 12% of the original unit cost.
Considering what they're doing I don't believe it's a bad price.
with the upgrades it's getting it's still top dog. the a1 is good till 2021 a2 till 2050 a3 is suppossed to come up in a couple years so that will be good for who knows how long.
So long as there isn't a crunchy with a ATGM or attack helicopter in the vicinity, yeah, they're pretty tough.
Good thing at that price we're just giving them away to the Iraqi army....
I work on those Vehicles as a Service Rep for GD.
I served on them in one capacity or another for 21 years as a Crewman and Master Gunner.
I might be considered a bit biased, but I would have to say, they are the best and essentially without a peer when it comes to MBT's.
When it comes to ground combat if you need a Tank, the Abrams is the one you want to see comming in to support you. As good as other platforms are, Abrams rules.
I'd say they're tied with the Challenger for top dog. Brits may lag just a bit because of logistics.
Not too shabby either.
I saw some "Best of" show on the military channel that claimed the current German Leopard main battle tank was the best out there. I suspect if you talk to actual tank drivers none of them would like to go into battle against M1A2 Abrams.
Do heavy main battle tanks still have a significant role in the conflicts we are likely to face? I see their role being less then before. Still have a place on the plains of Europe and defending South Korea but the smaller quicker military might start leaving them at home as things spin up quickly in a distant theater.
I dunno, they've got a better gun, and much longer range than the M1 does.
I wouldn't want to be in either tank.
Here is where I would disagree with you.
Essentially you use MBT's like the Firemen of the battlefield. They can't hold ground without support, but they can plug a gap or turn back the tide of an advance quickly or breech a defence like no other.
I would submit to you, that if you need a MBT, you really dont want a Striker or a Bradley to show up, you want a Tank and hopefully an entire Platoon.
Tanks are there because they are the Heavy Weight Champions of the Battlefield. The firepower available to ONE U.S.Tank Crew is essentially equal to what one U.S. Infantry Company has available.
What it costs to provide that much firepower is the sticking point. It was not unreasonable in the Gulf Wars for one Abrams to burn up to or in excess of 750 gallons of JP8 a day. What it Costs in Ammo you would love to have in your 401K, you can easily fire 100K in ammo without a reload.
Where we go wrong is using Tanks to do missions that are not in line tactically with their capabilities. You really dont want to patrol the streets of downtown Baghdad with a Tank. You dont want to use them as a pillbox and you dont want to leave them behind to rust in some motorpool.
The Challange is to use each tool to it's capabilities and be keenly aware of it's weaknesses. Unfortunatly we aren't always smart that way.
The Modern Battlefield is no different in it's tactics, just in it's tools.
BTW the Leo and the Abrams have the exact same 120mm gun, but our firecontrol is light years ahead of the Germans.
The world really can't catch up. Only first world industrialized nations can produce and operate them in any number.
The Abrams Main Battle Tank is only king of the hill if it is backed up with a baggage train of fuel trucks. A fact not lost, when the Germans designed the Leopard II with a conventional diesel engine.
The tank-infantry phone was dropped as we transitioned from the M60 to the M1. One one ever figured on GI's riding on the hulls of tanks again.... Until the Iraq War make it neccessary for proctection.
The Axillary power unit is diesel Wankel engine, saving fuel instead of running the turbine for electrical power.
My experience with GD (commo), has always been positive. Those guys really know their stuff. I never have an interaction with them where I don't feel stupid.
Depending upon the model of Leo, some use the L/55 gun vs our L/44. Significant difference.